The Ethereum Foundation, the nonprofit that has stewarded Ethereum's research and grant-making since 2014, is losing senior people at a pace that has become hard to ignore. At least eight high-profile researchers and leaders have left the organisation in 2026, five of them in May alone. The most recent are protocol researchers Carl Beek and Julian Ma, who both announced their exits on the same Monday.
For ETH holders, the relevant question is not whether people are leaving — they clearly are — but what it signals. A wave of departures can mean an organisation is failing, or it can mean an organisation is deliberately reshaping itself. This analysis separates the structural story from the noise, and weighs what each reading implies for Ethereum.
Who Has Actually Left
The 2026 roster of departures is substantial. Carl Beek is stepping away after seven years, with a final day of May 29; Julian Ma is leaving after roughly four years on the protocol research and development team. They join a list that already includes Barnabé Monnot, Tim Beiko, Trent Van Epps, Alex Stokes, the long-time operations and writing lead known as Josh, and former co-executive director Tomasz Stańczak. These are not junior names — several were central to research coordination and protocol communication.
The stated reasons vary, and that matters. Beek cited personal reasons, including time with a newborn child. Ma said he is leaving to focus on product and growth opportunities outside the Foundation. Not every exit is a vote of no confidence. But the cumulative count is large enough that individual explanations no longer fully account for the trend, as Unchained and other outlets have noted.
The Structural Cause: the 2025 Mandate
The most useful frame is not “people are unhappy” but “the organisation changed shape.” The Ethereum Foundation rolled out a new mandate in 2025 that pushed execution outward — toward client teams and independent organisations — while keeping research and grant-making at the centre. When a body deliberately narrows its scope, staff whose roles sat in the de-scoped areas tend to move on. Reporting from CoinDesk's protocol desk has framed the 2026 exits as the second-order effect of that restructuring playing out.
That reading reframes the headline. A foundation that intentionally hands execution to a wider set of teams will, almost by definition, shed headcount. The risk is not the headcount itself — it is whether the work those people did is being picked up cleanly elsewhere, or quietly dropped.
Dankrad Feist's $1 Billion Proposal
Into that uncertainty stepped a concrete proposal. Former Ethereum Foundation researcher Dankrad Feist suggested creating an entirely new institution, funded with at least $1 billion, explicitly tasked with protecting Ether's competitive position and its price. The idea has crystallised a genuine debate inside the community.
The case for it is focus and accountability: a body with an explicit mandate to defend Ethereum's market standing would have clear goals and clear ownership. The case against is mission creep and optics — a nonprofit ecosystem has generally avoided institutions whose stated job is to support a token's price, both for credibility reasons and because such a mandate is hard to measure and easy to politicise.
The Bull Case: Decentralising the Human Layer
There is a constructive way to read all of this. Talent leaving the Foundation is not the same as talent leaving Ethereum. Researchers move to client teams, to independent research outfits, and to startups building on the network. Ethereum was never meant to depend on a single nonprofit, and a wider distribution of expertise reduces single-point-of-failure risk. By this logic, the 2026 exits are the mandate working as intended.
The Bear Case: Lost Memory and Opaque Governance
The less comfortable reading focuses on coordination. The Foundation has historically been the convening force for hard-fork planning, and senior researchers carry institutional memory that is not easily transferred. The community reaction has sharpened this concern: members on X have openly questioned the organisation's direction, leadership structure and communication, arguing that the rationale for the changes has not been clearly explained. Coverage from crypto.news captured that unease. Governance opacity, more than the departures themselves, is the real fundamental risk.
What It Means for the Roadmap and for Holders
Ethereum's roadmap — continued scaling work and the upgrades that follow — depends more on coordination than on any single org chart. The signals worth tracking are concrete: who absorbs the de-scoped coordination work, whether Feist's proposed institution gains real traction, and whether the Foundation communicates its restructuring more clearly. Each is observable over the coming months.
For holders, this is a fundamentals and governance story rather than an immediate price catalyst. A reshaped Foundation is not, by itself, bullish or bearish. But persistent governance opacity is a real discount factor: markets pay less for assets whose direction is hard to read. The honest conclusion is that the jury is still out, and the next two quarters of communication from the Foundation will say more than the departure count itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many people have left the Ethereum Foundation in 2026? At least eight senior researchers and leaders have departed in 2026, with five of those exits announced in May, including Carl Beek and Julian Ma.
Why are they leaving? The reasons are mixed. Some cite personal or career moves, but the broader driver is a 2025 mandate that pushed execution work outward while keeping research and grants central, making some roles redundant at the Foundation itself.
Is Ethereum in trouble because of this? Departures from the Foundation are not the same as failure of the protocol. Talent often moves to client teams and independent organisations. The genuine risk is loss of coordination and unclear governance, not the headcount alone.
What is Dankrad Feist proposing? Feist, a former Foundation researcher, has proposed a new institution with at least $1 billion in funding, explicitly tasked with defending Ether's competitive position and price — a proposal that has divided the community.
Does this affect the price of ETH? There is no direct, mechanical price impact. The effect is indirect: persistent governance opacity tends to act as a valuation discount until the Foundation's direction becomes clearer.
Disclaimer: This article is for information and education only. It is not financial, investment or legal advice. Cryptocurrencies are volatile and you can lose money. Always do your own research and consider speaking with a licensed financial professional before making any investment decision.